(PC) Felder v. Henson et al

Filing 55

ORDER setting responsive pleading deadline re #41 , #45 , #54 signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/17/2016. (21-Day Filing Deadline).(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY E. FELDER,

12

Plaintiff,

13

HENSON, et al.,

ORDER SETTING RESPONSIVE
PLEADING DEADLINE

v.

14

Case No. 1:13-cv-01622-AWI-JLT (PC)

15

(Doc. 41, 45, 54)
Defendants.
21-DAY DEADLINE

16
The Court has screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and found1 it to state the

17
18

following cognizable claims upon which he may proceed:

19

a. for violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment against Defendants Amaro,

20

Kuckenbaker, Kruse, Hill, Morgan, Villalba, Gibson, Dr. McLoughlin, and Dr.

21

Narayan based on the events surrounding the forced extraction of contraband from

22

Plaintiff’s rectal cavity;
b. for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Amaro,

23

Kuckenbaker, Kruse, Hill, Morgan, Villalba, and Gibson; and

24

c. for involuntary sedation in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

25

Amendment against Defendants Amaro, Kuckenbaker, Kruse, Hill, Morgan, Villalba,

26
27
28

1

Though the order (Doc. 54) that adopted the findings and recommendation (Doc. 45) referred the action to the
undersigned for service, Defendants have already been served. Thus, their responsive pleading is now due.

1

1

Gibson, Dr. McLoughlin, and Dr. Narayan.

2
3

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that, within 21 days of the date of service of this order,
Defendants shall file an answer 2to the Second Amended Complaint.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

6

November 17, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Second Amended Complaint was screened at Defendants’ request (see Doc. 42) and though
Defendants had opportunity to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations thereon (see
Doc. 45) they did not do so. Thus, the Court will not entertain any motions to dismiss for failure
to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2